Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “G” BENCH, MUMBAI
O R D E R
PER PAVAN KUMAR GADALE JM:
The assessee has filed the appeal against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)/CIT(A), Delhi passed u/s 250 of the Act.
At the time of hearing, the Ld.AR of the assessee submitted that there is a delay in filing the appeal before the Hon’ble Tribunal and filed an affidavit for condonation of delay. We found the facts mentioned M/s Godrej Agrovet Ltd., Mumbai. in the affidavit are reasonable and the Ld. DR has no specific objections. Accordingly, condone the delay and admit the appeal. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
1 The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in dismissing the Appellant's appeal against order under section 143(3) as withdrawn by relying on the application dated 11th October, 2021 seeking withdrawal of appeal against order under section 201.
2. The Appellant prays that the order dated 17th May, 2022 of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) be set-aside and the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) be directed to dispose of the Appellant's appeal against order under section 143(3) on merits.
The brief facts of the case are that the assessee company is engaged in the business of Agri Products, Animal Feeds, Integrated Poultry Business, Crude Palm Oil and Trading of Agricultural Products. The assessee has filed the return of income for the A.Y 2014-15 on 29.11.2014 disclosing a total income of Rs.1,26,26,40,560/- and the return of income was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently the case was selected scrutiny and notice u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act along with questionnaire was issued. In compliance to the notice, the Ld.AR of the assessee M/s Godrej Agrovet Ltd., Mumbai. appeared from time to time and submitted the details. The AO on perusal of the financial statements found that the assessee has earned dividend income of Rs. 89,25,979/- and made suo-moto disallowance of Rs. 8,51,009/- towards expenditure incurred on earning exempt income. Whereas the AO was not satisfied with the explanations and invoked the provisions of Sec.14A r.w.s Rule8D and computed the disallowance of Rs.1,27,65,043/-.
On the second disputed issue, the AO found that the assessee has claimed additional depreciation of Rs.3,34,50,825/- in respect of plant and machinery and Rs. 3,90,611/- in respect of high efficiency boilers all aggregating to Rs. 3,38,41,436/- and the assessee has submitted that the depreciation of 50% was already claimed in A.Y 2013-14 u/s 32(1)(iia) of the Act. Whereas the AO has recomputed the proportionate depreciation and dealt the provisions of Sec. 32(1)(iia) of the Act and has observed at page 9 Para 5.10 of the order as under:
5.10 Had the intent of the Legislature not been to restrict the additional depreciation to 50% in case where the asset has been put to use for less than 180 days, there M/s Godrej Agrovet Ltd., Mumbai. was no need to introduce the amendment to section 32(1)(iia) with effect from the 1st day of April, 2016 which now states as under:
"Provided also that where an asset referred to in clause (iia) or the first proviso to clause (iia), as the case may be, is acquired by the assessee during the previous year and is put to use for the purposes of business for a period of less than one hundred and eighty days in that previous year, and the deduction under this sub- section in respect of such asset is restricted to fifty per cent of the amount calculated at the percentage prescribed for an asset under clause (iia) for that previous year, then, the deduction for the balance fifty per cent of the amount calculated at the percentage prescribed for such asset under clause (iia) shall be allowed under this sub- section in the immediately succeeding previous year in respect of such asset.
5.11 Thus the assessee is eligible to claim the remaining 50% of the additional depreciation of the assets put to use for less than 180 days in subsequent year from AY 2016-17 and not prior to that. In view of the facts mentioned above, the additional depreciation of Rs.3,34,50,825/- in respect of plant and machinery and Rs.3,90,611/- in respect of high efficiency boilers totaling to Rs.3,38,41,436/- in respect of which additional depreciation of 50% was already claimed in AY 2013- 14 u/s 32(1)(ila) is disallowed and added back to the total income.
Finally the AO has assessed the total income of Rs. 1,30,83,96,030/- and passed the order u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 21.12.2016. M/s Godrej Agrovet Ltd., Mumbai.
Aggrieved by the order, the assessee has filed an appeal before the CIT(A), whereas the assessee has filed the appeal against order u/s 143(3) of the Act but the CIT(A) has made observations on the order u/s 201 of the Act and the grounds of appeal raised. The CIT(A) though has mentioned that the order appealed against U/sec 143(3) of the Act in the cause title but in the order the CIT(A) refer to the observations of the AO in relation to order u/s 201 of the Act and dismissed the assessee appeal as withdrawn. Aggrieved by the CIT(A)order, the assessee has filed an appeal before the Honble Tribunal.
5. At the time hearing, the Ld. AR submitted that the CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appeal filed against the order u/s 143(3) of the Act as withdrawn and also erred in considering the facts and proceedings of the order passed U/sec201 of the Act in the present appeal filed against the additions made by the A.O. u/sec143(3) of the Act and prayed for the directions to the CIT(A) to dispose of the appeal filed against order U/sec143(3) of the Act. Contra, the Ld. DR supported the order of the CIT(A). M/s Godrej Agrovet Ltd., Mumbai.
We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The sole contentions of the Ld. AR that the Assesee has filed an appeal against the order u/s 143(3) of the Act, Whereas the CIT(A) has discussed on the facts, circumstances and details of order passed U/sec201 of the Act. We found that the assessee has filed an appeal against the order u/s 143(3) of the Act and at page 1 of the order , in particular the order appealed against U/sec 143(3) of the Act in the cause title was mentioned and date of order 21-12-2016 but in the order the CIT(A) refer to the observations of the AO in relation to order u/s 201 of the Act and dismissed as withdrawn based on the application filed in respect of order passed U/sec201 of the Act dealt at Page 5 Para 5&6 of the order. We find that there is conflict of opinion in the order by the CIT(A) and the assessee has raised grounds of appeal challenging the additions of the assessing officer. We considering the principles of natural justice shall provide one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee to substantiate the case before the CIT(A) along with evidences and information. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the M/s Godrej Agrovet Ltd., Mumbai. CIT(A) and remit the entire disputed issues in the order u/sec143(3) of the Act to the file of the CIT(A) to adjudicate afresh on merits and the assessee should be provided adequate opportunity of hearing and the assessee should cooperate in submitting the information for early disposal of the appeal and we allow the grounds of appeal of the assessee for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.